So, your mantra of HAPPY PEOPLE MAKE THE COMPANY MORE MONEY. Exactly how much MORE money do they make than unhappy people?And how much more do they make for their respective companies, than unhappy people? Don't make statements, when you can't back them up with REAL FACTS!!!
I have given you REAL facts here hennie. You own example of the controlers' strike, for one: Here's another set of facts:
United Airlines, nearly gone,
USAir, nearly gone,
Eastern, as gone as you get.
PanAm, Gone twice.
SouthWest Airlines: Making Lots and lots of Money.
JetBlue: Making lots of money.
What do the top 4 have in common? Unhappy people. I suggest you read: "
SouthWest Airlines: Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve Amazing Productivity" an excellent book.
"
Now on to your statements. Maybe you could live off of less than 7$/hr 6/7 years ago, but I am going to guess that most people could not. Now, if you were able to do that, and IF, as YOU say, that the increases have been so great over the last 5/6 years, let's examine something related. As has been stated repeatedly in recent reports, our economy was heading into a recession at the end of the Clinton Administration, which our current President inherited. If you, as an intelligent person can see these things happening around you, why wouldn't you then make arrangements to be able to live within your means? Whether that be thru a 2nd job, new job, etc.? Not claiming to know you, or your situation, to you make the assumption/generalization, that everyone could live much more easily on less than 7$/hr 6/7 years ago, when you couldn't possibly know the answer to that question on a mass level. "
Huh? I never said I could get by on that. All I said was that if a person COULD have been getting by, things have gotten to the point that now that can't. And no, I can't say that about many people any more than you can. Which you did.
"
You also say that you, and others couldn't possibly negotiate on your own with Disney. Why not? If you don't like the offer, you walk away. I fail to understand the problem with working elsewhere. NO ONE in this country works/lives in a vacuum..If I had to find work elsewhere, I would.
You act as though Disney is the end all be all of jobs, and that if you can't negotiate a contract thru your union, life as you know it would be over. But, if you are having to work within the framework of union-negotiated pay, benefits, etc., then yes, you are forced into this situation, IF, and ONLY IF, YOU CHOOSE TO ALLOW IT. Again, you don't have to take the job."
Ok, First, at that level it doesn't work one on one. Any one have a diferent story? Has anyone successfully negotiated a substantially better hourly wage when being hired by a large mutinational for an entry level job? (sound of silence fills hall) Second, as we've been trying to explain, you can't say that the same dynamics work for Disney as with other jobs. IF, as you say, these peole should negotiate with their feet, Disney will loose the best and brightest. Law of supply and demand. The best will leave, and the over-all quality of workers will decline over time, again because of what you are saying. When ever Disney hires a good person, they won't be able to hold on to them.
Third, you are now generalizing, YOU cannot say that all of these people are in a position to switch jobs on a continuing basis.
Fourth, you are contradicting yourself, because you made an earlier statement that longevity is GOOD FOR PEOPLE AND EMPLOYEERS, and people shouldn't chase that brass ring all the time. Yet here you are advocating JUST THAT.
"I'm just not getting why you are SOOOOOOO bent on the fact that life for you would be so terrible without the "protection" of a union."
Obviously.
"Like your happiness in your job is tied directly to what your union can negotiate for you. I'm unhappy, so I'm going to give the company less of me. That's what you are saying with your mantra of HAPPY PEOPLE MAKE THE COMPANY MORE MONEY."
No, that IS NOT what I'm saying. I am saying that investing in people is a winning stragety for a service-based business. It's both BASIC ECONOMICS, and a FUNDAMENTAL BUSINESS STRAGETY. See the above references, or search Amazon for SouthWest Airlines for a whole cottage industry's worth of bussiness tomes on the subject.
"Ummm, I'm just guessing here, but have you ever heard of EHTICS?!!!! If you accept the job, you accept it lock, stock, and barrel. Anything less than 100% on a daily basis from you, is STEALING!!!"
No. But I have heard of ETHICS, and I am deeply insulted. Since you don't know a thing about me, I'll let it go, and not demand satisfaction at this point. Suffice to say, I have a geat deal more experience with what does and does not constitute ethical behavior that most people.
Nor am I suggesting that Disney CM's would intentionally slack off. But, people do get fustrated, loose their temper, and so on. Despite your rosy view, people aren't perfect. Combine that with the best and brightest leaving, and you are headed down the road to Chapter 11.
"
Your message always seems to be that companies should just be willing to take less profit, while paying its workers more. Umm, point of order counselor, businesses are in business to MAKE MONEY."
DUH. Again, I'm not saying that they should give away the store, but it is a PROVEN FACT that taking the long view and investing now can make you more money in the long run. Don't believe me? Ever heard of Warren Buffett?
It is my contention, as I've said from the begining, If Disney would raise wages, they will get that money back in the long term through happier, more productive employees. Disney is a service based business. It's PEOPLE are key to it's success. Keeping the best is central to their continued success, and BY YOUR OWN arguement, paying more is a good way to do that.
"
It is NOT the MORAL OBLIGATION, as was said earlier, of the company to pay you what YOU consider a fair wage, or to keep YOU, the employee happy. Regardless of what you say, it is NOT the obligation of the company."
I will conceed a SMALL point. I mispoke, it's not a MORAL obligation, it's an ETHICAL obligation. However, where is the morality in paying a departing employee 100 million dollars, while not paying your loyal workers squat? Oh, BTW, that 100mil would have funded a great raise, wouldn't it?
Besides, your statement runs contrary to Walt's personal vision that has carried the company for decades.
The ethical obligation lies in prioritizing what is best for the INVESTORS. What is more important, paying an outrageous bonus to the top execs, or hiring and retaining the best possible people for the jobs that make the money in the first place? Which one will make MORE MONEY of the investors? I think you'll see the investors agree with me on this one, otherwise they wouldn't be suing Disney. Allowing 100 million to just fall off the balance sheet for no constructive purpose DOESN"T make the company profits either, you know.
" ......
If you don't have the backbone to speak up for yourself, then you deserve whatever you get from the company. "
Oh that's nice. What an offensive thing to say. Did the Scots deserve to be burned out of their houses so Lord Southerland could raise sheep? Did the steel workers deserve to get their heads busted by corrupt police a century ago? Did Meryl Streep diserve to have her brake lines cut?
( a joke in reference to Silkwood, for those who didn't get it.) Again your rosy view of the world just doesn't jibe with human history.
"Again, if you don't like the scenery, then change your location. You getting this yet? "
Aren't you getting the fundamental flaw in you logic? With one hand you say leave, and with the other you say go. On the one hand, you say they should cut a better deal, and when they do jsut that, you say they're wrong for not having liked the deal in the first place.
"And once more, I believe in the power of individuals, and not the power of big government, or the power of organizations whose job is to take from one group to give to another. And along they way, they line their pockets with the hard-earned money of those they claim to support and work for."
Again, your rosy view of humanity just doesn't jibe with the history of labor relations. And, given how difficult it is to form a union in the first place, it can infact be assumed that nearly ALL of the Disney people at one point felt a union was required as well.
Also, you still have a misperception of where those dues go. They pay for lawyers, but they also pay for political clout that the masses wouldn't have. Correctly run unions do not get rich at the member's expense, the Teamsters scandal stoped that on any grand scale. The dues of a union are no more squandered on high sallaries and lavish expenses that are you NRA dues.
Too bad that can't be said of Disney's corporate funds.
"
You just need yourselves to take a stand for what you believe in as individuals, and do what you think is best for yourselves and your families."
A nobel setiment, but again history just doesn't agree.
"
In the end, the union/disney WILL compromise YOUR needs in order to keep the lines moving. It's in both their interests to do so. "
That statement make no sense unless you are implying that the union is corrupt.
"
With respect to my views of unions driving up costs, I merely direct your attention to any of the stick/ball professional sports. All of which have player unions, collective bargaining, inflated salaries, inflated ticket prices, and declining attendance at events. Tell me how they have been good for their respective sports. Tell me how, in the end, they've bettered anyone, with the exception of the PLAYERS?"
Two words hennie, FREE AGENCY. It WASN'T the union that negotated the high salarys players have. It was free acting sports agents. Check YOUR facts for a change will you? There aren't any rules in the NBA contract that REQUIRED Shaq to get gazillions. That was Shaq doing EXACTLY what YOU said he SHOULD, cutting the best deal possible.
"Maybe, and I'm NOT willing to concede this point, unions had their place. But in todays' economy, with the FREEDOMS that we ALL enjoy in this country, the power of choice, and the power of individuals is what is the greatest of
all."
And how do you defend that Freedom, hennie? Who won it in the first place? Those freedoms were won by unions and responsible government actions. And like any freedom they must be vigiorously defended, at all times. Now look at history, how much success have individuals had defending themselves against economic tyranny?
